CODE 18.77
Mr Stewart
Mr Thompson
229/3 BJ 38 1
3
Aded
Reference
Ꮧ
From para 3 I am not sure whetherty preservationists want to save the old Builway station canu it so they are dult) or whether they simply bloject THE KOWLOON RAILWAY STATION to the plans for the Red culture centre.
1.
jacks
•
During my stay in Hong Kong I was lobbied by members of the Hong Kong Heritage Society, who, I understand, have just dispatched a petition to The Queen, seeking the preservation of the old Kowloon Railway Station (I believe Hong Kong have sent a telegram to the department on this topic while I have been away).
I find it very difficult to reach a conclusion on this. Local feeling is, I think, stronger than the Hong Kong Government are prepared to admit, and the objectors are not confined to a vocal group of mainly expatriates: the 15,000 signatures on the petition are predominantly ordinary Chinese residents of the Tsim Sha Tsui area who (so the members of the Heritage Society assure me) are disturbed by the pace at which everything around them is changing and would like to see something they recognise survive.
2. There is no doubt that arrangements in Hong Kong for involving the public in planning decisions are woefully inadequate (this, of course, has its advantages: the District Officer in charge of Shatin new town told me he thought they would take at least four years longer to complete the project if they had had to go through UK planning procedures), and the Kowloon Railway Station is being used by those few concerned people who are waking up to this situation, as a means of highlighting the problem. On the other hand, I am not sure whether it is really appropriate for conservation efforts to concentrate on colonial structures like the railway station, (and even more so the Victoria Barracks and the Hong Kong Club - the Society's next two targets).
3.
Although I am generally sympathetic to their aims, I do not think the Heritage Society case over the Railway Station is really conclusive. They claim that the cultural complex for the site proposed by the PWD is architecturally disastrous, but that is essentially a subjective view. They also claim that the project need only be delayed six months if it were decided to make it the subject of an international competi- tion (one of the specifications for which would be the incorporation of the old building): of that I remain highly sceptical. I am sure the delay would inevitably be much longer: in the meantime, any visitor to Hong Kong must be impressed by the intensive use that is being made of such recreational and cultural facilities as exist, and can only see in this the urgent need for new facilities as soon as possible.
4. The Government have proposed, as a compromise, retaining the clock tower of the railway station. This, it seems to me, is a reasonable solution, if it is workable. But the Heritage Society believe it is not, and they question the good faith of the PWD in putting forward the proposal (they claim the Director of Public Works is on record as saying that the tower will not stay upon its own: it will be retained now as a sop to the conservationists, but will be declared unsafe and demolished within a couple of years)
HK Case
M733
5. I promised the Heritage Society that their case would be carefully and promptly considered, and we would try to get a reply before the date next month when demolition is due to start (or that if we could
OFFICER
/not
INDEX
PA
*